The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

Neither Adoption or Abortion are a 'good' option. Either way, you spend the rest of your life wondering 'what if?'. In a perfect world, we would be able to look after everyone, couples would stay together and we'd all live happily ever after. However, as we all know, this is not a perfect world and a lot of the time, life hurts you. Sometimes you have to think 'Is it worth letting a child be hurt because I can't cope?'.

You can look at adoption as an option, but you must look at it from different angles.
Yes, you are giving a family a child that they would not be able to have otherwise, you're giving the child the chance it wouldn't have had otherwise and you don't have to live the rest of your life hating yourself. However, you also have to think that it's hard to carry a child for 9 months and not fall in love with it. Could you give it up afterward? Could you create this perfect thing and give it to a stranger?

I'm not saying that abortion is the lesser of two evils, God knows I've punished myself over what I did, I'm just saying that you have to look at both sides of the argument.

I was young and stupid and selfish when I had my abortion but looking back, I would have done the same even knowing what I know now. If I had carried the baby to term, I know I would have kept it. I would have wasted that childs life for it because I couldn't look after it.

I hurt all the time, every day, because of my choice but I'd rather it hurt me than hurt my child. I cry every day because of what could have been but I have to think that, hopefully, my child would understand and forgive me. Even if I don't get forgiven, I'd rather the baby was in heaven and hating me in paradise than having it here with me hating me for giving it a bad start in life.

My son now has all the chances he could want but 6 years ago, I didn't know that I would marry Mr. Right, I didn't know that I wouldn't have any financial worries. Maybe Rob and I wouldn't have met. I would have had to live in council housing (which round here is awful and generally in really bad areas) and bring the child up on benefits. That's no life at all.

 

That's absolutely correct. The only legal obligation the father has is to write a check every month. Big deal.

 

I am going to pull it to the extreme as I am prone to do, not going into the main debate but just saying that I would rather kill my child than to give it away. That is kinda harsh but I could never ever ever adopt away a child of mine. I could probably be an absent father but something about the idea of giving away what is *mine* does not sit well with me.

To put it in more reasonable terms, if I got a woman pregnant with a child we could not take care of or wanted to take care of I would first opt for a very very early abortion and if that is too late I would just have to suck it up and raise the child as best as I could . I will not give away a child that is mine. Not going to happen. I am quite surprised at how strongly I feel about just that issue but a child is the "essence of mine" it is in a way me, I could kill it (as many people see abortion) but I could not give it away.

 

Not all men are dirtbags as your comment seems to suggest. Nor are all men inherently incompetant to care for children, as the Survivor joke seems to indicate. I admit there's lots of dirtbags out there but speaking as a father who has been painted with the same brush as said dirtbags I have to say that I wish people wouldn't be so quick to slide to that default setting.

 

Man, LKD, I was not trying to imply that most men were dirtbags. I was trying to make the point that it's great for all these guys to be saying, "yeah, have that baby," while at the same time, they are the ones who are not raising the child. In other words, the day they are willing to take the child for themselves and raise it, is the day I will begin to think that they know what they are talking about.

Believe me, LKD, I feel for you in your situation. I think you have a bum deal. A guy in your situation gets screwed, big time, and it's not fair, IMO.

 

It isn't fair that one group of bad fathers give them all a bad name. My partner has a child with his ex wife and him, the ex and me have sat down and talked and all agreed that the 3 of us can give the girl a great upbringing if we work together. He would love to spend more time with her and it upsets him when people assume that he sends money every month to 'get out' of being with her!

 

Why is he scum? Didn't he do the woman a huge favour by ridding her of a parasite?

 

You're sick count, that really does go too far

 

Joacqin, that is very extreme, and a very sick extreme. Personally, I think that statement was sicker than Count's just above. The reason is that I believe Count said it in mockery of the arguement many femenists give for abortion, that a child is just a parasite, a cancerous growth, when unwanted. Your's, on the other hand, I take quite seriously, and so I hope you're very, very careful to avoid ever getting into that situation. I count that mentality as a very close kin to the guys who would rather kill their girlfriends/wives than let them leave.

 

What!? I know plenty of feminists who would on these boards be called extremists but none of them think anything even midlly similar to this. Have you actually heard this kind of argumentation being said or are you just (unsuccessfully) reading between the lines?

 

I have heard it. I have heard it many times. The idea is that, because it is an unwanted organism that, as they argue, is not a real human being, and it is sapping the life from the woman. Yes, it is sick and entirely irrational. These people just want to further dehumanise the baby.

 

Ah, I assume I was correct about you reading between the lines and making your own inteprentation. While I'm sure pregnancy to them is considered and unfair burden which a woman should not have to go through simply because they had sex, does not mean that the fetus to them is a parasite. It's not equal and not even nearly so. You are in my opinion more guilty here of dehumanizing feminists than they have ever been guilty of dehumanizing the fetus.

 

I've heard the argument made by feminists, but only the extreme, wackazoidal far out there feminists. These feminists are thankfully a minority of all feminists but they are quite vocal.

Their argument consists of the idea that according to a dictionary definition, a fetus IS a parasite -- that is, it saps resources from the host without immediately providing a benefit to said host. That's the denotation of the word. The connotation is something quite different. The line of attack seems to be use a loaded word, watch for a reaction, and then hit the opposition with the denotative proof and try to lable them as ignorant.

The fact that ANYONE can seriously use the parasite argument and expect undecided people to side with them boggles my mind, though.

 

I'd really like to hear where you have heard these kinds of arguments. I mean I know some pretty radical feminists (one made a big deal of other women wearing gowns at a bit fancier party making a complete idiot of herself) but none of them go with the parasite argument. Now the point that they do make is that pregnancy is too much of a burden to be expected to bear for a woman who does not want a baby. That is not the same as saying that the fetus is a parasite.

Now while I'm sure there is someone somewhere who thinks at those lines they are in a very small minority even among feminists and I'd claim that even among radical feminists. NOG talked about many feminists sharing that opinion which in my opinion and expirience is not at all true.

 

Anyone here who says that pro-choicers don't have a tendency to dehumanise a fetus have obviously not had the misfortune of being exposed to a significant amount of internet debate. Do any of the following statements ring a bell?

- The fetus is just a clump of cells.

- The fetus is no different from a cancerous growth.

- The fetus is not alive.

- The fetus is a parasite.

- The fetus is no different from a tapeworm.

The above of just some of the dehumanising statements proferred up by pro-choicers in a flagrant attempt to prioritise the woman's 'choice' over the unborn baby's life. Don't believe me? Then just type those phrases in Google, I guarantee you you'll get some hits.

This of course raises the question. If people do take such a view towards a fetus, then clearly that man who beat his girlfriend into a miscarriage did her a big favour by ridding her of a parasite (or a neoplasm, if you look at it that way), right? Right?!

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 30 seconds later... ----------

LKD:

No, it's not. The parasite must belong to a different species from the host, which means by definition a fetus is NOT parasitising on the mother.

 

Ok, Morgoroth, I may have given the wrong impression with my choice of words. I did not mean to imply that I believe all or even the majority of feminists believe this, but rather that many of the feminists I have had the 'pleasure' of talking to have said things along the lines of the above. I don't even think it would amount to a majority, but it has certainly been a sizable minority. Now, I may have just been exposed to a disproportionate number of this particular breed of hate monger (as the rest of their statements have proven them), and I would love to believe this, but my experience simply indicates to me that these are not likely a vast minority among the feminist movement. I've frequently heard these arguements made in the company of such ones as advocating the total elimination of men because women can 'reproduce just fine by ourselfes' (refering to test-tube babies) and are 'best left to our own (mechanical) devices' (on the issue of sex). Now, I'm fairly sure (at least I hope) these statements were made as a way of arguing from the ridiculous, inciting fervor, and increasing tension, essentially making a controversy, but there is always the slim chance that some actually believe it.

If you have never run into any people like the above, consider yourself lucky. Be sure, however, that they do exist.

As an afterthought, considering you're in Finland and all, they may be a purely American phenomenon. Thinking of it, I've never heard it said with an accent, though accents don't carry over the internet too well.

 

I actually did that, and why am I not surprised to be met with mostly pro-life sites using these kinds of sentences to demonize the pro-choice movement.

 

Since when did quoting pro-choicer in verbatim = demonising? Not even a majority of the sites which pop up are pro-life, anyway. Here's just one where posters discuss whether they consider the fetus to be a parasite, with the overall consensus being "Yes, it is!"

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/416382

Funnily enough, they quote the biological definition, and due to poor literary comprehension neglect to comprehend the bolded bit in the following:

Note that it isn't just hardcore feminists who refer to a fetus as a clump of cells/neoplasm/parasite/non-living entity. I've had the misfortune of encountering many moderates who also believe such nonsense.

What's truly sickening amongst pro-choicers is the sense of entitlement and 'spoiled brat' attitude that pervades their ranks. "Waaa waa waa, pregnancy is uncomfortable so I should be able to kill the child! You men just don't understand, butt out!"

Can you imagine a patient with kidney failure who is on dialysis screaming "Waa waa waa, waiting in line for a kidney transplant is uncomfortable, I should be able to kill those who are further ahead in the queue!" And when they do kill these people, they tell everyone else to shut up, because they don't know what it's like to be suffering from renal failure?

It's like society has gone bonkers. Women have been disadvantaged in many areneas in the past, and now we are over-compensating them. Sorry sweetheart, don't play the violin, you shouldn't be able to kill your baby. You can't kill or even neglect your born baby, so you shouldn't be able to do likewise with an unborn baby.
I don't care that it's 'attached' to you, that's a completely arbitrary distinction which has no bearing on its value as a human being. If the baby were stitched to your stomach, suckling at your teat, or attached to your via the umbilicus just after birth, I wouldn't see that as a window of opportunity for you to cut into it with rusty razor blades because it's been screaming too loud and keeping you awake at night. Deal with the consequences of your actions like a responsible human being, instead of killing for convenience.

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

A woman shouldn't be held responsible for the consequences of her actions because I won't let her pass the buck on to me? WTF?! Are you for real?

---------- Added 0 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds later... ----------

I almost thought I could hear a violin playing in the background while reading that . Get real, having a child is not the end of the world. People have been giving birth and raising oodles of children for thousands upon thousands of years, under much worse conditions than modern day single parents in the Western World. Hell, sometimes they even got some satisfaction and joy from it.

These days people are just spoiled. They think that they are entitled to a specific sort of lifestyle which empathises "Me me me!". That's fine, I suppose, if you don't put said lifestyle in jeopardy by spreading your legs and making babies. Otherwise, be prepared to cop the consequences, whether that be raising the child or adopting it out to a willing 3rd party.

As for the quality of the life of the child, that's just absurd. Not existing is far less preferable to existing but being poor or adopted out. It's quite common for successful and happy individuals to have had a poor upbringing. Hell, even orphans in 3rd world countries struggle to survive, suggesting that they do value their own life. If a child is so unhappy with their life, they can always kill themselves. I hardly think it's fair that somebody else gets to make that decision for them, though.

I wish that if people are going to be selfish, that they would at least be honest about it.

 

It's amazing that you are so against abortion when you yourself are such a good advert for it

 

You think people whose opinions you find objectionable deserve to be killed? Jesus Christ!